Category Archives: Uncategorized

Like the oft-gifted holiday food item, that few people admit to actually liking, Romney is the candidate whom few actually like, but whom everyone assumes everyone else will vote for.

I haven’t yet decided which candidate I will support in the Republican primaries. Johnson, with whom I agree on most issues, is somewhat weak on foreign policy and, in his remarks on the President’s decision to send troops into Uganda, did not consistently apply the “military threat” principle he had applied in discussions of Iran and Libya. Cain, whom I like on many issues, seems to be working quickly to get up to speed on some issues, and may be modifying his positions on others, particularly social issues. So it’s too soon to tell.

Of course it is important to keep in mind the context here: I do not expect that I will be able to vote for my ideal candidate in the 2012 elections. I am merely looking for a candidate whom I can like or respect to some extent, who will stop the bleeding both in terms of our economy and our foreign policy, who won’t try to impose his religious views, and who won’t further damage the reputation of capitalism and the free market. Is that too much to ask?

In a previous blog post, I explained why I don’t think Ron Paul satisfies my criteria with respect to religion and foreign policy. And Yaron Brook, when interviewed on my podcast, explained why he thinks Paul might damage the reputation of capitalism and the free market: he does not consistently apply the principle of individual rights.

In the first hour of Sunday’s podcast, I took a closer look at the presumptive favorite in this race: Mitt Romney. In the days leading up to the show, I came up with various puns: “Mutt Romney”, because he’s a “mixed breed” candidate who isn’t quite liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. “Mint Romney”, because, just as a breath mint can only mask bad breath temporarily, neither Romney’s slick demeanor nor his coiffed hair can cover the stench of his stale, socialist-leaning policies. “Mitt Rob Me” because that’s what he plans to do — to all of us. Etc.

But my favorite label for him is one that I came up with during the podcast: that Mitt Romney is the fruitcake of 2012 Presidential Candidates. Like the oft-gifted holiday food item, that few people admit to actually liking, Romney is the candidate whom few actually like, but whom everyone assumes everyone else will vote for. My question is: why is everyone assuming this? If I don’t like him, and I know I would not be happy voting for him, then why should I assume that everyone else will enjoy voting for him? As I explained in my podcast, our dislike of Romney is not for arbitrary or superficial reasons. If you go to his site and actually read his 59(!)-point plan (I read the 5-page executive summary, which is really all you need), you will see that his proposals are at best timid ($20 billion in cuts — please!) and, at worst, measures that will further entrench the welfare state. A little tinkering and protectionism here, a little shuffling of money from federal government to state government there, all packaged in such a way as to be passed off as a “sever[e] break…from our current course,” “fundamental change,” “deeply conservative,” “highly ambitious,” and, of course, based “on the principles of free enterprise, hard work, and innovation.”

So, why is it that one of the current leaders in this race is a candidate whom very few like, a candidate whom we have ample reason to dislike? Why do we assume that he is “electable” — which means, if it means anything, that we are assuming that other people will like and vote for him? Thoughts?

[Thanks to Bosch Fawstin for the perfect graphic!]

I was glad to hear that Herman Cain has revised his position on the Obama Administration’s recent killing of Al Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki. Had Cain not revised his position, he would have joined other 2012 GOP candidates, including, unfortunately, Gary Johnson, in insisting that because al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, he was entitled to “due process”.

As I see it, the better people who have had qualms about the killing of al-Awlaki were confusing two questions: (1) Do you think that a government following a proper procedure would have given and carried out a kill order on someone like al-Awlaki? (2) Do you think the Obama Administration followed a proper procedure? Based on the knowledge I have, I think the answer to the first question is “yes,” while the answer to the second question is “maybe.” Because the Obama Administration has not released the secret DOJ memo, or writ, that it developed to justify the killing of al-Awlaki, we do not yet know whether they followed a proper procedure.

What would such a procedure consist of? Something analogous to that used to obtain a search or arrest warrant, but obviously more involved because of what is at stake. The procedure would be designed to make objective, to the extent practicable, the fact that the proposed target has acted in such a way as to relinquish his citizenship and that he has rendered himself an enemy combatant. I agree with the official quoted in this Daily Mail article, who said, “What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war.”

Perhaps the proper procedure would be a hearing before a special judge, or panel of judges. Maybe a grand jury of sorts would be most appropriate. What is clear, though, is that it’s nonsense to assume that whatever procedure is used must protect the target’s “fifth amendment rights — guaranteeing a fair trial for all U.S. citizens,” as the Daily Mail article implied.

Citizenship is revocable. It’s not some intrinsic status that you get to retain no matter what actions you take against your country. And whatever you think should be the minimum necessary actions to constitute a relinquishment of one’s citizenship, I would assume that acting as “‘chief of external operations’ for al Qaeda’s Yemen branch” probably qualifies. (Click here for information on the current state of the law in this regard. Thanks to a Facebook friend for posting this information on a mutual friend’s wall.)

Like so many others, I’m in shock this evening after hearing the news of Steve Jobs’ death. Yes, we all thought it was probably coming, given his recent retirement. But we did not know for sure, and we hoped we were wrong.

On the occasion of Jobs’ retirement, I read some quotations in this article to the effect that Jobs did not think technology would change the world. I agree that technology alone cannot, but here’s what I wrote on Twitter this evening:

Technology may not change the world; but great technology can help the right ideas to change the world more quickly. Thank you, Steve Jobs.

See also this post, which I wrote on the occasion of Jobs’ retirement.

I’ve loved Apple under Jobs’ guidance, and I am hoping that Apple’s succession plan is as good as everything else Jobs helped to design.